Delhi District Court
Nasir Ali And Ors vs State And Ors on 21 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010044732024
Cr Rev/189/2024
NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS
1. Nasir Ali
S/o Afsar Ali
L-II-980, Gali No. 23,
Sangam Vihar, Deoli,
South Delhi-110062
2. Mohd. Faisal
S/o Mumtaz Ahmed
1080, Gali No. 24, Block L-2
Sangam Vihar,
Holi Chowk, Mehrauli,
South Delhi-110080
3. Sheikh Nasir Ahmed
S/o Abdul Kadir
L-1, 1574/9A, Gali No. 9A,
Sani Bazar,
Church Colony,
Sangam vihar, South Delhi-62
4. Amir Ali
S/o Intijam PURSHOTTAM
E-12/9B, Near Golshane Islamia Madrasa, PATHAK
Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar,
South Delhi-17 Digitally signed
by PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.02.22
5. Nakeer Ahmed 16:24:48 +0530
Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 1 of 15
S/o Mehndi Hasan
L-2, Block, House No. 1638,
29, Near Koushar Masjid,
Sangam Vihar, South Delhi-62 ....... REVISIONISTS
VERSUS
1. State
Through SHO
PS: Neb Sarai
New Delhi
2. Nirale Hasan
S/o Ashraf Ali
L-2/917, Gali No. 23,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi
3. Tarik
S/o Ashraf Ali.
L-11A, 1416, Gali No. 27,
Shani Bazar, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi
4. Rahis
S/o Ibban
L-2/917, Gali no. 23,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
5. Rafayat Hussain
S/o Latafat Hussain,
L-1st, 1772, G/F, Near Church Colony,
Sangam Vihar, Deoli,
South Delhi
6. Nasreen
W/o Nirale Hasan
L-2/917, Gali No. 23,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. ...... RESPONDENTS
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Digitally signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PATHAK
Date: 2025.02.22
16:24:53 +0530
Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 2 of 15
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.05.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 19.11.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21.02.2025
JUDGMENT
1. By way of the instant petition, revisionist take exception to an order dated 20.04.2024 passed by Ld. MM-03, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in case bearing CT no. 5701/2020, PS Neb Sarai, titled as 'Nirale Hasan and Ors. Vs. Nasir Ali and Ors.' whereby Ld. Magistrate directed concerned SHO to register an FIR against accused/ revisionists and investigate the case, while allowing the application of complainant/ respondent moved under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. The Ld. MM has noted the factual position as under:-
"Succinctly, the case of the complainants is that complainant no 1 to 4 are associated with 'Building Nirman Mazdur Union' and in this capacity they found that water from Delhi Jal Board Tube Wells is being sold to poor persons like the complainants by a water mafia comprising of Hanif, Apaji, Nakeer, Roopesh Dhama, Nasir Ali, Faizal, Nasir Ahmed, Mushaid Ali, Amir Ali, Mohnis Ali, Faruk Ali, Sheik Naseer Ahmed, Aakil, Nakeer, Nafasat, and some other persons, who by dishonest means bribe the Delhi Jal Board officers and give hafta to the local police and thus have the illegal control of two DJB Tube Wells which they utilize to unduly enrich themselves by selling water to poor residents including the complainants. Copy(s) of the complaints which they and other residents had written to various authorities are annexed alongwith their Complaint dated 12/02/2020 made to SHO P.S Neb Sarai.
It has further been stated that ever since the complainants filed the complaints with the Delhi Jal Board, Police etc. against the water mafia w.r.t. their illegal occupation, possession of the tubewells of the area and illegal sale of water to the poor residents which is to be given free of cost to the public, they started earning wrath and animosity of the said Mafia. The aforesaid Water Mafia propped up their accomplices which included Nasir Ali, Mohd. Faizal, Shaik Naseer Ahmad, Mushaid Ali, Rupesh Dhama, Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22 16:24:55 +0530 Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 3 of 15 Mohnis, Faruk Ali, Amir Ali, Nakeer Ahmed, Aakil, Nafasat, along with a mob of 15/20 persons to go to Complainant No. 1's house situated at L-2/917 Gali No.23, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and teach him a lesson and overawe, intimidate and beat him up. These persons in extension of their aforesaid nefarious plan came to the house of complainant no. 1 on 7.12.2019 at 9.30 pm along with 15- 20 persons duly armed with lathis and dandas to the to beat up the Complainant Nirale Hasan so as to injure, overawe and intimidate him from complaining against the mafia. Their plan, as prepared by Roopesh Dhama/ accused no. 5, these persons came to the house of Nirale Hasan and started shouting abuses against his mother and sister and challenging him to come out. At the said point of time Complainant no. 2/Rafayat Hussain who was present at Nirale's house told them to stop. Upon this these persons pushed him down and Nasir caught hold of him and Aakhil told Mohnis Ali "Maar dalo sale ko" upon which Naseer Ahmed picked up a brick and hit it on the head of Rafayat/Complaint No. 2) with so much of force that Rafayat fell down and started bleeding profusely thereafter the said persons forcibly entered the house of Nirale and started hurling abuses on to the women folk which included his wife Nasreen and throwing down household articles. In this duration Rahis Ahmed/Complaint No. 3, who is chacha of the Nirale Hasan and lives under the same roof came down and found that 15-20 persons which included Nasir Ali, Mohd. Faizal, Shaik Naseer Ahmad, Mushaid Ali, Rupesh Dhama, Mohnis, Faruk Ali, Amir Ali, Nakeer Ahmed, Aakil and Nafasat had entered the house of his nephew [Nirale] and had injured Rafayat [Complainant No. 2] by hitting him on the head and who post his head injury was lying on the ground and bleeding profusely. The accused person no. 5 Roopesh Dhama was seen issuing directions to Nasir Ali, Mohd. Faizal, Shaik Naseer Ahmad, Mushaid Ali, Rupesh Dhama, Mohnis, Faruk Ali, Amir Ali, Nakeer Ahmed, Aakil and Nafasat to beat and injure the complainants. Multiple PCR calls were made by the neighbours who had assembled and the miscreants got scared and ran away from the scene. Details of PCR calls and complaint dated 12.02.2020 to PS Neb Sarai annexed.
PCR came and took injured Rafayat/complainant no. 2 to Trauma Centre. Later policy gypsy took Nirale Hassan and Rupesh Dhama to PS Neb Sarai. Later at 12:30 AM, Rupesh Dhama was let off and Nirale Hassan was taken into police custody by SI Raj Kumar. When news of Nirale Hassan's arrest reached the ears of complainant no. 3, he went to the police station and complainant no. 2/ Rafayat also came after getting treatment from Trauma Centre along with complainant/ Tarikh. Seeing nothing material coming out Tariq and Raes Ahmed headed back home on a motorcycle. Tariq sat on the pillion of motorcycle and while Tarikh and Raes were on their way home all of a sudden near the Khatta, Amir, Nafasat [Accused No. 8 & 11] and Ibran [accused no. 12] plus two three others persons [whom the Complainants Tariq and Raes can identify] stopped their motorcycle and turned it over due PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 4 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.02.22 16:25:00 +0530 to which both Tariq [Complainant no.4] and Raes [Complainant no 3] fell on the ground and some of these persons i.e. Accused no. 8 & 11 and others as specified above hit Tariq on the head with a sharp weapon due to which he started bleeding when Raes tried to intervene he was caught by Nafasat and some other persons and Amir [accused no 8] hit him with a sharp weapon on his head and he too started bleeding profusely. Somehow Raes and Tariq got out of the scuffle and left for the Trauma Center for medical treatment. The MLCs of Complainant No. 1-3 are annexed with the Complaint.
Information about the arrest/detention of Nirale was not given to his family members and even the FIR number was not disclosed to his wife. Complainant no. 1/ Nirale was made to sign some blank papers and it is alleged that IO threatened to implicate him into false cases. Later signatures on some blank papers were taken from complainant no. 4/ Tariq as well under the threat of false implication. Complainant made multiple complaints to the police but no FIR was registered and no action was taken by them against the proposed accused persons and FIR was registered against the complainants. "
3. Record reveals that pursuant to directions of Ld. Magistrate, an ATR came to be filed by concerned Inquiry Officer, PS Neb Sarai, wherein it was reported that no congnizable offence is made out and the complainant was directed to approach court to get the case registered on NCR.
4. Ld Magistrate after considering the ATR and hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order inter-alia with following observations :-
"Lengthy arguments were addressed in Court. After perusal of the material on record and after hearing the submissions of Ld. counsel for complainant and IO, prima facie case is made out for registration of FIR against the proposed accused persons for proper investigation into the allegations put forth by the complainant. Field investigation including interrogation is required to unearth the complete evidence and for proper justice to the complainants. MLC of proposed accused/ Mohd. Fazal mentions simple injury with laceration over left Temporal Region of Scalp. MLC of proposed accused/ Nasir Ahmad mentions simple injury with laceration over inner aspect of right ear. MLC of proposed accused/ Musahid Ali mentions simple injury. MLC of complainant/Rafayat mentions simple injury with laceration Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 5 of 15 PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22 16:25:03 +0530 over right front aspect of scalp and forehead area. MLC of complainant/Tarik mentions simple injury with laceration over right front aspect of scalp. MLC of complainant/Rahish Ahmad mentions simple injury with multiple laceration scalp. Further, MLC of complainants also mentions suturing done under local anesthesia. Further, there are clear allegations of criminal trespass and same bears mention in the PCR call/ GD no 68 A dated 07.12.2019 at 9:38 PM as well wherein the caller stated that "30-35 log ghar me marne ke liye aaye hai". It is completely unjustified that concerned SHO has chosen to register FIR under Section 308 IPC on one complaint and has completely ignored the injuries suffered by the complainant which also appear to be serious considering suturing was done under local anesthesia.
Further, it is gross abuse of process of law by the IO and SHO to further tell the complainants that no cognizable offence is made out. SHO PS Neb Sarai is directed to register F.I.R. within 3 days and investigate the case holistically from all angles with a view to unearth the total and correct facts of the present case. Needless to say that the investigation will not be bound only on the facts produced in the complaint of the complainant. Further, considering that the alleged incident took place in December 2019, SHO and IO are also directed to expedite the investigation and ensure chargsheet is filed at the earliest, considering chargesheet has already been filed in the FIR registered on the complaint of the proposed accused persons. Complainant is at liberty to move application for monitoring of FIR as well, in case they have reason to believe IO/ SHO are deliberately delaying the investigation."
5. The revisionists are aggrieved with the said order of the Ld. Magistrate and have assailed the same by instant petition on following grounds:-
i. that the Ld. Trial Court has erred in passing the direction for registration of FIR against the revisionists, who were never involved in any quarrel against the respondents, and were also not present at the spot at the time of incident.
ii. that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the direction for registration of FIR must not be given mechanically and there has to be some substance in the complaint.
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.02.22 16:25:07 +0530 Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 6 of 15 iii. that the Ld. MM did not consider that all the evidence on which respondents are relying are within the possession of respondents and so the police investigation is not required.
iv. that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that there are contradictions in the statement of respondent Nirale Hasan and there is also a long gap between the incident and hospital visit of the respondents.
v. that the Ld. MM failed to consider that the nature of injuries of the respondents Nirale, Rahis and Tarik are simple in nature and that in this regard, the NCR vide no. 0010/2019 was registered against the revisionists.
vi. that the Ld. MM failed to consider the fact that the name of revisionists, Nasir Ali, Amir Ali and Nakeer Ahmed were added later by the complainants, when they became witness in case bearing FIR no. 402/19, which was registered against the respondent no. 2 to 5.
vii. that the direction of Ld. MM to the police to register FIR against the revisionists is bad in law, illegal and is liable to be set-aside.
6. Ld. Counsel for the revisionists in addition to above grounds has argued that accused Faruk Ali, Monis Ali, Nafasat and Ibran were not involved in any quarrel against the respondents and in fact they were not at the spot at the time of incident. He further argued that the application filed u/s 156 (3) Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 7 of 15 2025.02.22 16:25:10 +0530 Cr.P.C. has been filed as a counter blast to the FIR registered by the police on the complaint of the revisionists. It was further urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
7. Ld. counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'S. K. Khaja Vs. The State of Maharashtra Criminal appeal no. 1183/2011 and Appeal no. 1229 of 2012 dated 21.02.2006, Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors 2023 SCC Online SC 766.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondents vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and Ld. Magistrate, for the right reasons, directed for registration of FIR keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. He further argued that the impugned order was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances of the present case. He submitted that even the Hon'ble court in its order dated 30.12.2019, directed the SHO concerned to look into the injuries suffered by the accused side and to take appropriate action. He further submitted that no action was taken on the complaint of respondent no. 2 in regard to the alleged incident, instead on a forged and fabricated complaint of respondent no.2, an NCR No. 4/2020 u/s 323 IPC was filed. He submitted that the present revision petition has been filed against an interlocutory order and is not maintainable. It was argued that instant petition is nothing but a mischievous attempt to aggravate the harassment of respondents. It was further argued that revisionists have not come PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 8 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.02.22 16:25:14 +0530 with clean hands and have suppressed material facts. It was submitted that the present revision petition is misconceived and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. On the strength of these arguments, respondents seek dismissal of instant revision petition. He relied upon following judgments:-2012 (IV) AD (Delhi) 711 Praveen & Ors Vs. State, Mangal Singh and Ors Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi 2016 (157) DRJ 301, Sumit Kumar and Anr. Vs. High Court of Delhi and Anr. 2016 (157) DRJ 308 (DB), State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kedar Yadav (2009) 17 SCC 280, Mohd Ilyas and Anr. Vs. The State 2014 (3) SCC 43, Bhawarlal S. Kothari Vs. Registrar Appellate Tribunal Foreign Exchange & Anr. 2014 (1) SCC 48, Ansaruddin Vs. State of M. P. & Ors 1997(2) Crimes 157 passed by Madhya Pradesh High court, Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409, Sarabjit Rick Singh Vs. Union of India (2008) 2 SCC 417, Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1.
9. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the revisionists and the respondents and have also perused the Trial Court record. I have also gone through all the judgments as relied upon by the Ld. counsels for the parties.
10. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also assisted the court, the state being proforma party.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22
16:25:17
+0530
Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 9 of 15
11. Before testing the case of the revisionists on merits, the issue of the maintainability of the instant revision ought to be resolved first.
12. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 397 Cr.P.C. which is as under :
Section 397 : Calling for records to exercise powers of revision :--
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling, for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.--All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not beexercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal,inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that since the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) is an interlocutory order, no revision petition against the same was permissible. What is an 'interlocutory order' has been discussed by the Apex Court in the decision reported as (1977) 4 SCC 137 Amar Nath v. State of Haryana:
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22 16:25:20 +0530 Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 10 of 15 "6. Let us now proceed to interpret the provisions of Section 397 against the historical background of these facts. Sub- section (2) of Section 397 of the 1973 Code may beextracted thus:
"The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The main question which falls for determination in this appeal is as to what is the connotation of the term "interlocutory order" as appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 397 which bars any revision of such an order by the High Court. The term"interlocutory order" is a term of well- known legal significance and does not present any serious difficulty. It has been used in various statutes including the Code of Civil Procedure, Letters Patent of the High Courts and other like statutes. In Webster's New World Dictionary "interlocutory" has been defined as an order other than final decision. Decided cases have laid down that interlocutory orders to be appealable must be those which decide the rights and liabilities of the parties concerning a particular aspect. It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus,for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail,calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court".
14. The issue is no more res integra in view of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Nishu Wadhwa vs Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr on 10 January, 2017 , wherein it has been observed as under :-
"13. The issue that since the accused has not been summoned as an accused and has no right to file a revision petition is alien, while deciding an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The said issue crops up when the Magistrate entertains the complaint and on taking cognizance proceeds as a Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 11 of 15 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.02.22 16:25:24 +0530 complaint case. In case directions are issued for registration of FIR immediately, on registration of FIR, the person against whom allegations are made in the FIR attains the status of an accused. His rights in so far as the Police can summon him for investigation, arrest him without warrants for allegations of cognizable offences are duly affected. In a situation where the fundamental right of freedom and liberty of a person is affected, it cannot be held that he has no right to be heard at that stage. Thus to hold that since directions only have been issued under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and no cognizance has been taken thus no revision would lie would be an erroneous reading of the decisions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, an order dismissing or allowing an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable."
15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid legal position it cannot be contended that the instant revision petition is not maintainable. Having resolved the issue of maintainability in favour of the revisionists, now I proceed to test the case of the revisionists on its merits.
16. In my view, all the contentions raised by the revisionist's counsel relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the respondent has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded. However, same is neither possible nor permissible while exercising revisional jurisdiction by this court.
17. Suffice it would be to say that as rightly observed by Ld MM in the impugned order, Prima facie case is made out for registration of FIR against the proposed accused persons for proper investigation into the allegations of complainants.
Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 12 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22 16:25:29 +0530
18. It is also evident from the impugned order that Ld MM was persuaded to pass the order in view of seriousness of allegations i.e. the complainants received injuries during the alleged incident and their MLC's were prepared, but police ignored the injuries suffered by the complainants / victims and did not take any action. It is also evident that Ld MM has passed the order after considering that there are clear allegations of criminal trespass which bears mention in the PCR call/ GD no. 68A, dated 07.12.2019 at 9:38 P.M. as well wherein the caller stated that " 30- 35 log ghar mein marne ke liye aaye hai ". Therefore, it is clear that Ld MM has passed the impugned order after going through the record carefully and after being satisfied about commission of various cognizable offences.
19. In my considered view, once an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is moved before a Magistrate, he has two options. He can either send the case for investigation to concerned Police Station in the facts and circumstances of a particular case or instead of doing so, he may opt for taking cognizance on the complaint of the complainant, may proceed to record the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses in pre-summoning evidence and thereafter, may decide whether a case for summoning of accused is made out or not. Once, the Magistrate has opted to exercise discretion by sending the matter for investigation, this court, while exercising the power of revisional jurisdiction, cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 13 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22 16:25:33 +0530 the Ld. Magistrate. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123, wherein it has been held as under:
"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."
20. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Ld MM has passed the impugned order after considering all the relevant factors and this court can not interfere with rightful exercise of the discretionary powers vested in the Ld MM. In my view, the thorough investigation by police is required. There is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the impugned order. None of the judgments relied upon by Ld counsel for revisionists comes to his aid in the factual matrix of present case.
21. Accordingly, this court finds no valid reasons to interfere in the order dated 20.04.2024 passed by Ld MM. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, the order passed by this court on 04.05.2024, whereby the operation of Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 14 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.02.22 16:25:37 +0530 impugned order was stayed, also stands vacated with dismissal of present revision petition.
22. TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial court along with a copy of this judgment.
23. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Ld. Counsels forthwith.
24. Revision petition be consigned to record Digitally roomsignedafter by due PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK compliance. PATHAK Date: 2025.02.22 16:25:42 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) 21th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 15 signed pages) Cr Rev/189/2024 NASIR ALI AND ORS. Vs. STATE AND ORS Page No. 15 of 15